She did outcook him twice, and I prefer her to him, however she also made ceviche twice, and did another cold preparation using smoked salmon once. I was happy to see her cook during the elimination challenge, as her resume is quite immpressive.

As far as the 'favoritism' comment, do you think it was made due to the fact that Eric Ripert is often a guest chef on Top Chef? While I respect her ability, did a spritz of lime juice and some fresh herb garner a victory worth 15K on a reality show where we are led to believe the focus is on cooking?

1) Eric Ripert was not the guest judge on this episode.2) Sexist Mike has never made a comment when a man has won a challenge3) If the "spritz of lime juice and fresh herb" tasted better than all of the other dishes, then of course she deserves to win. Since you can't taste the food, you'll just have to trust the judges.

I figured someone would eventually come in and defend his quite frankly inexcusable comments.

Of course we do. The editiors are not changing his words or creating false statments. We just don't know if it's in context or not. It might be reasonable to assume creative editing if it's a one time event but when it occurs on every episide the benifit of doubt begins to diminish IMO. While I think Mike was a bit off base with his favoritism comment I also think that since Ripert has often been a judge that every one is probably wondering if Jenn doesn't have a slight edge with the judges.To be fair she really hasn't cooked much at this juncture and that is a complaint we have heard from the judges in the past.

reiflame said "2) Sexist Mike has never made a comment when a man has won a challenge"

i said we have no idea if he did or didn't make a comment when a man has won. I did not mean to imply he didn't say what he said, only that our not seeing him say something is not the same as his not saying. he may well have bitched and moaned after every loss, and the editors only shows the ones after women won to build that drama.

no, no...technically it *is* a cooking style applied to rice. so you did know :)

Mike's comment had to do with the fact that he apparently thinks all home cooks have the inaccurate impression that risotto is a *variety* of rice (like arborio or basmati) as opposed to a particular preparation of it. ironically, his explanation wasn't completely accurate because he didn't specify that true risotto is only made with rice. his potato dish may have been cooked "in the style of risotto," but it sure as hell wasn't risotto!

Until he made that comment I was thinking that perhaps he's not as much of an A** as the editing would have one believe. Next thing you know he's talking down to the viewers. So that made me a convert, there's only so much editing can do perhaps he really is an A**!

Ha! Thanks, GHG! Man, I'm glad you explained that, otherwise I would have let Mike's comment "correct" me into an embarrassing mistake. I like your way of phrasing that he cooked potatoes "in the style" of risotto.

In general, Mike's a pretty arrogant dude. Seems he looks down his nose at a lot of people. Looks like Bravo has founds its villian for this season. Like may of you, I am looking forward to the tumble off his self-designed pedestal.

She is obviously a very talented chef and I don't think they are playing favorites. The only thing I would say is that she really needs to start cooking something other than fish and shellfish - you can't win Top Chef on only seafood.

Did you catch MikeI's face in the QF judging? Chef Peel interrupted his description of the dish to say it was salty, thus deflating Mike. Padma then gave him a brilliant smile and said something like "nice idea, though," and Mike lit up like a Christmas tree.

Based upon the Bravo TV blogs, it was Tom or Gail that mentioned the "angry" critcism... The judges wanted the chefs to do a great job and not disappoint the airmen and their families so they (the judges) were, inadvertently, very critical of the dishes that fell short.

I actually LIKED the judging this time - they showed them really having expressing their feelings...when something sucked, they said it. Perhaps it's just that the show was longer and we saw *more* of the judging. I almost wish this show could always be 75 minutes. I just think you get more out of what we want to really see - the cooking *and* the judging and the reasons behind why the judges make the decisions they do.

And "risotto" a technique that has nothing to do with rice? Obviously, the technique used to make risotto can be applied to other foods, but if I ordered risotto (derived from the Italian "riso") in a restaurant I'd expect to get a rice dish unless specifically told otherwise. FWIW, here's Wikipedia:

"There are many different risotto recipes with different ingredients, but they are all based on rice of an appropriate variety cooked in a standard procedure.

i can't believe i'm gonna defend Mike here, but he didn't say it has "nothing to do with rice." what i got from it was that he assumed all of us poor, misinformed, clueless home cooks (cough, cough) think risotto is a *variety* of rice, and he felt it was his duty to inform us that it's a technique.

language evolves, and things that aid communication will survive. so if saying "potato risotto" gets the idea across more simply or clearly than "potatoes cut small to simulate rice, and then cooked in the same manner as a risotto, so as to achieve a similar result" we will continue to hear it - and i'm ok with that.

as i've said a million times before - unless you still use "terrific" to mean "terror inducing" and refuse to call it a "sunset" because the earth moves, you are w/out a leg to stand on, consistency-wise on this issue.

if we're going to get particular about semantics, perhaps i should have said "preparation." the fact is that risotto is a rice dish cooked a specific way (which is why i said technique), and what i got from his comment was that he believes people are under the erroneous impression that risotto is a variety of rice (like basmati, or long-grain, or arborio...).

anyway, i think it's funny that he went out of his way to school us all with his little aside, when he could have used a little schooling himself - his potatoes were "cooked in the style of risotto," which would have been the proper way for him to describe his dish.

I was scratching my head at what he said when he said it wasn't the rice (dish?) that home cooks think it is. I was wondering if I'd been wrong on what it is and that anything cooked in that technique was "risotto." I've cooked oatmeal, baby pastini, orzo like that but would have never called any of it "risotto." Thanks for explaining. Scary you're reading his mind, though!

"Scary you're reading his mind, though!"~~~~~nah, i just know the type - i grew up in Jersey, so i've encountered many Mike Isabellas in my time, which makes it easier for me to decipher his neanderthal ravings ;)

i like Mark Peel, it's nice to see him back...and i'm sure he's happy to be on the other side this time :)

i'm so sick of Mike I. he's such an ass. i don't care if he "means" to be or not, it's just obnoxious and juvenile. and considering that his last 2 dishes (this QF & last week's EC) have fallen flat, he needs to just shut up & cook.

somehow i'm not surprised that Ashley did well despite the water fiasco...i think she's the dark horse here. and Ash was clever to re-name his dish so that he could pass it off as a success instead of admitting it didn't turn out. very smart, especially considering the flavors were obviously on point.

Preeti just doesn't impress me. sure, the colors in her QF dish were beautiful, but how did it TASTE?

and i'm really starting to hope Jessie goes home tonight. she just can't get it together. every challenge she falls short on execution.

Can I just say that Jennifer C. just kicked ASS on her kitchen management skills? Making her EC for this challenge was a good idea - she's firm but fair. Surprisingly, it was Mike I. who voiced the suggestion!

i'm not surprised Mike suggested Jen. it means she takes some of the heat if this doesn't go well! she has immunity, and a major fiasco might otherwise mean that the EC would go home. he was covering his own ass :)

Her "executive" skills were really impressive. She was organized, drove the teams as needed and pulled no punches. This woman is a force to be noticed. No wonder Eric Ripert has chosen her to be one of his right arms.

I have mixed feelings about Jen. I think she is extemely talented, but something seems off to me. Can pinpoint it yet though. The preview where she made the comment to the chefs about keeping it about the food and discussing "this" later, made it seem like she was having a disagreement with someone. I thought, hmm good for her not putting up with crap and keeping the focus of the task at hand. Yet it ended up being about a conversation they were having while working. After I saw that, I thought, hmmm that's just being petty. I'm sure the elves edited a bunch of stuff out, but I didn't see the big deal about talking while working. Although I know some chefs like to keep the kitchen all about the current work, or even quiet at times,it didn't make sense to me since things looked like they were running smoothly.

she has a very sour, nasty seeming disposition but then I heard one of the other chefs describe her as shy so who knows. she rubs me the wrong way, personality wise, but chef wise she seems to be on a level above the others....

I have mixed feelings also; I know she's talented but I can't warm up to her. I feel the same way about Bryan (hope I named the right brother). I got to thinking that maybe it's because these two rarely smile or show strong emotion -- makes them seem humorless.

But this is Top Chef...not Top Personality. If their food is good, their food is good and they are worthy of moving on the competition, right? I think Jen has made an awesome showing thus far because of her food and her ability to manage others in this episode.

Right...I have no wish to see any of the chefs judged on "personality" but I wasn't criticizing their talents, just pointing out how their on camera actions/appearances alter our feelings towards them as people.

I would be curious to know how they appear without the editing. For instance, Bryan didn't even smile when his brother won. Or did he -- and it was just edited out?

Interesting point...I'm sure Bryan was happy for his brother...but at the same time, kicking himself for not being able to be in the top 4. I'm sure they'll cover his reaction in the next episode. They always seem to have the brothers' reactions to the other's successes.

Yes, but sexist Mike did not suggest that she be the Executive Chef. He suggested she be the "tournant" - to quote Richard Blais "It’s an interesting approach and reveals a lot about Mike’s character. We now are getting to know the cast a little better, and this play is vintage Isabella. Let’s ask the “girl cook” to take on an archaic title that can best be described as a substitute teacher. Classically, it refers to a cook who works all the stations in other cooks’ absence. A position of skill, sure, but not really of certified rank. A position that may be the proverbial glass ceiling for a woman in Mr. Isabella’s mind." And she replied to his challenge - sure I'll be the Executive Chef.

Ooh chicgail - I had responded to wincountrygirl just above - the way the threading works they end up stacking underneath each other once it gets far enough into the replies - so it almost looks like I replied to you. :-)

Ok so last week Ashley makes a big deal about cooking for an event that she cannot participate and someone on the board made a comment asking how the gay chefs would feel if they had to cook for the military because of the "don't ask don't tell" policy....well lo and behold! Doesn't Ashley go ahead and say what an honor it is for her to cook for the Air Force etc...Now I am glad that she's excited to cook for them, but isn't it kind of ironic? Discuss...

OK, just read Richard Blais' blog at Bravo - he noted something interesting about Michael Isabella recommending that Jennifer C. take the role of "tournant" (I couldn't remember the word he used further upthread). Blais says:

"So, I found it strange, that in tonight’s episode, Mike Isabella suggests that Jennifer Carroll take on the role of “tournant.”

It’s an interesting approach and reveals a lot about Mike’s character. We now are getting to know the cast a little better, and this play is vintage Isabella. Let’s ask the “girl cook” to take on an archaic title that can best be described as a substitute teacher. Classically, it refers to a cook who works all the stations in other cooks’ absence. A position of skill, sure, but not really of certified rank. A position that may be the proverbial glass ceiling for a woman in Mr. Isabella’s mind.

I said cook, earlier, intentionally. Because I get the feeling, that Mike would have a hard time answering, “Yes, Chef!” to any woman.

Jennifer’s response? Sure, I’ll be the Executive Chef. Touché! "

So Blais is seeing exactly what we've all been saying - that Mike I. has a problem with women leading in the kitchen. It will remain an interesting POV to see how it gets handled in future episodes.

I wonder if there's an episode where the two of them have to work directly together?

The great thing about an album or a menu is that you can skip over the items you don't like and still dig the artist. Blais does not use nitrogen "every time he cooks" any more than Hendrix used a wah wah peddle on every track. Irrespective of whether or not some may dislike those elements they helped propel the artist to popularity because the elements they incorporated into their art are unique.

I'm not a fan of Mike, but I do think there was some valid reasoning behind 'his' (assuming it was) idea. They had no idea what the challenge was going to be; Why not work in teams? There was and odd number of people. Jenn did have immunity. I did think it made sense to have her in a position where she would not be competing against others who are trying to remain in the competition. And Jenn could have refused the position and made something on her own.

Oh, I don't disagree at ALL on having Jennifer be the EC for the Elimination Challenge - it makes complete sense, especially when they decided on their own to form teams.

My posting the comments from Blais's blog was in reference to Mike Isabella's previous and current rather demeaning comments about Jennifer C. and women in general. Blais's comments were along the same lines as what several people on CH threads have said - saying "that's one less old lady I have to deal with", calling Jennifer a tournant (lower level than EC), etc. He seems to have a HUGE chip on his shoulder about women running a kitchen, and Blais called him out about it in his blog.

I certainly agree that Mike seems to have an issue with women. I think he is probably simply arrogant/insecure over all. And I believe he would have taken the same attitude and degraded the position regardless of who, male or female, was filling it in order to attempt to deal with his own insecurities. It is just more noticeable when it is a woman given his history.